jose f.

The 85/1.8 SMC Takumar is one of the best lenses Pentax, or anyone else, has ever made. Prices are pretty high for an M42 mount lens.

Someone else will have to fill you in the functional differences in the mounts.

Until I got all the way down and saw your issues with the Bessa rangefinders, I was going to suggest you build a Nikon kit that was complimentary -- say a body with wider angle lenses (20 or 24), longer ones (180/2.8), and a macro (60 or 100) for close focusing to do things the rangefinder struggles with. Everything else has pretty much been covered. I have strong glasses and use FMs and FEs. The finders aren't as nice as some of the larger, brighter ones, but they are quite usable.

You may also check here for the same developer, chemically speaking:

 

http://www.photoformulary.com/DesktopDefault.aspx

 

There's a note halfway down the left side of the page explaining what they're up to.

Sounds right to me, but I don't know how you would enforce it.

Both www.keh.com and www.ffordes.com list these items from time to time.

What's the history of the lens? Is this something new out of the box, or a bargain off the web?

Ilan, you might try removing that filter at night and seeing if the amount of flare decreases. Streetlighting and UV filters don't seem to work well together.

 

The hood would be nice to have, given the positioning of the front element. Sometimes I improvise with a couple of step-up rings if the proper hoods costs too much or isn't available.

Search photo.net for previous threads on 'schools of photojournalism/. There have been several discussions. In the US, Missouri, Western Kentucky and Ohio U. (Athens) come to mind. There are others.

The "loose" viewfinder on an RF camera looks odd to people who are used to the tight framing of an SLR, but has a lot of compositional advantages once you're accustomed to reading the frame lines. The .72 is a nice compromise if you plan to use the 35-50-90 set. Happy shooting.

Geez. All I want is an M7 built like an M2.....

The kid is a natural, Raid.

 

Did you do any filtering or adjustments to raise the contrast, or is that just my ancient, misaligned uncalibrated monitor at work? Maybe Florida sunshine is that much more intense than Oregon's.

 

I also prefer XP2 to the Kodak product, partly for tone and partly for the absence of the orange mask.

We're drifting, but there shouldn't be any orange cast on C-41 developed Ilford XP2 or XP2 Super. Purplish maybe, bluish occasionally, but it doesn't have the orange mask that some of Kodak's chromogenics display.

 

For wet printing, start with paper or filtration one full grade more contrasting than you would use for a traditional b&w film.

My experience is that XP2 (Super is a slightly smoother evolution) tolerates overexposure pretty well but builds contrast rapidly with underexposure.

Just about any camera shop, WalMart, Costco, Walgreens etc that offers photo processing will accept Kodachrome and send it away for processing. You can also buy prepaid processing mailers from outfits like B&H and Adorama, but I'd suggest sending the film in a small box with the mailer envelope, rather than trusting the envelope to the postal system.

 

Regarding exposure, take a test roll and a notebook; find an average, well-lit subject shoot a roll at varied ISOs from a stop to 2/3 of a stop under to 2/3 of a stop to a whole stop over. Compare the slides with your notes when they come back and use the ISO that looks best.

My background is news, not weddings, but the primary rule was always to never show anyone anything less than your best work. Offer them some extras and present alternatives to the shots they complained about.

The 'Planes' portfolio here

was shot with a 20/3.5 AIS, not the ai, some at very close distances, but the minimum f/stop used was probably 5.6.

A year inside might be enough time to figure out Eggleston. Otherwise, something by Eliot Porter like "The Place No One Knew." All the B&W streetshooters' images are so engraved in my brain I don't need the books.

Sounds to me like he doesn't really want the work. You need to have a conversation with him along those lines.

My mistake. Trying to do too many things at once.

 

Back when I got the scanner, I ran some comparisons of color slide film and color negative scans. The slide scans were much easier to work with and truer to the original.

 

There is obviously more grain in a 400 film than a 100 film, though the difference is less apparent than even five years ago. As Ilkka points out, you need to consider your personal goals and the end use.

 

Most of the photos are Provia400F (reversal) scanned on a Minolta Scan Dual III. I'm happy with the results. The B&W photos are Ilford XP2 Super.

The shutter sound on my M2 was kind of a hushed 'zip' sound, probably less noticeable than the sound of the CLE I use now. Neither is noticeable with normal background sounds but the CLE probably results in a few more turned heads in a quiet room. Neither is as quiet as a leaf shutter or many contemporary digicams. Can't help you on the Summicron; with the 40/2 M-Rokkor available I never felt the need to try the 35 on that body.

Robert Byrd owns them. Whatever body banished him should have the grace to delete them from the site, since he's not able to manage them.

 

We all should have learned this stuff when we were four years old. You don't take someone else's stuff without asking first. There's a big body of law in the US, at least, supporting 'fair use,' which frequently means 'non-commercial' use.

Bluefire Police has the characteristics you're after. Amateur Photographer had an article on the stuff recently.

Still using the SDIII here, but it installed easily close to three years back and continues to work well, even on a fairly old, slow Win98 machine. I even like their software.

Probably a result of relatively low production numbers and people's lack of interest in selling them.

You should be charging your base rates plus x-dollars per print. A group of 100 ought to generate a fair number of orders.

 

Do NOT do it the way the hired guy did it at a family reunion of mine years ago ... arrange the group and shoot from much too far away on 35 mm. A third of the image is waste space and individual faces are completely lost. It took him eight months to deliver a job that should have been out the door in three weeks. The guy's dad had run the best studio in town; I doubt there's anything left now.